Mr.McFeely

Appears in David Newell, created by User:Rklawton.

• Nominate and support. - Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 04:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose. This appears to be an improperly tagged screenshot of a television show. Ineligible for FP status and deletable on the Commons. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A screen shot, huh? With a vertical res of 1200px? That must be some helluva HDTV. And why does the EXIF info say it was taken with a Canon 20D? Maybe the author can comment on the circumstances this picture was taken. --Dschwen 10:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can tell from this photo: that Rklawton saw David Newell live somewhere. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 15:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support - Excellent resolution, but I don't like the picture very much. Still, I don't see much wrong with it. --Iriseyes 17:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Not very striking close-up. I don't like the way the left ear is cut off and a finger sticks into the frame. Redquark 19:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - nice but unstriking. Debivort 20:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can someone find a modern portrait of an american/european online anywhere that might actually pass FPC? I don't think they exist. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 21:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It is a problem, but I think portraits like those done by Annie_Leibovitz would pass easily if their copyright issues were solvable. Debivort
• I just checked out Annie's article. Do you really want a portrait of David Newell that includes his bare ass? Rklawton 01:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia isn't censored... ;) NauticaShades 07:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Annie Leibovitz also probably makes $10,000 a picture. I was talking amateur photgraphy.-Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 03:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In all honesty, I think this is a better portrait for Wikipedia than many of Leibovitz's portraits. Wikipedia needs pictures of the subject, not works of art which happen to contain the subject. I really do think that if we're looking to Leibovitz as an ideal, we have our priorities wrong - see Criterion 5: "It is important that the encyclopedic value of the image be given priority over the artistic value of the image. While effects like black and white, sepia, oversaturation, and abnormal angles may be visually pleasing, they often detract from the accurate depiction of the subject."
• Weak Support, this is an excellent composition, very natural looking, it focusses on the face so the cropping of the ear doesn't bother me. The lighting is pretty good, the DOF is ok, only the overall sharpness is not optimal. --Dschwen 07:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)°[reply]
• Oppose per Redquark JanSuchy 16:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as said by Debivort "Nice but unstriking." Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A good, attractive photo that illustrates a notable subject, and illustrates it well; an image which, as called for, 'adds significantly to an article'. Many FP candidates, while beautiful, are images in search of an article; this one, as well as being attractive, high-quality and well-shot, fills a genuine gap, which otherwise might well attract a dubiously-justified 'fair use' image. Good, free images of living celebrities are one of the rarest things on Wikipedia; we need more portraits of this quality, and should recognise them when they come along. (My only reservation: I'd be even happier if it was a bigger celebrity.) TSP 05:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Debivort. - Mailer Diablo 11:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Debivort. --Bridgecross 14:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]